S/A, Airmanship and Professionalism?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of quotes from those with experience and would know.......
"A pilot passing a CPL test today would not have passed a PPL test in the '80's."
"There are some 400 places you can learn to fly and around 20 where you can train to be a lawyer"
Over the past decade I have to agree that the standard of training is falling. Many pilots entering regional airlines have to be re trained is some of the basics.
Basic tasks such as X/W ops, constant powered approach, landing on a nominated spot seem to be just too hard for many. You have to go back to the schools to see any links. I know some operators that will not touch pilots trained at some schools, it is just not worth the effort These are all basic skills. Seems to me the instructors are not up to speed in many cases and have little or no supervision. As has already been said "they don't know what they don't know".
There are certainly too many (advanced) flying schools. Its fine to do your PPL at the country aero club, but advanced training should be undertaken at a school that has good supervision and standards. CASA has the power to lift the bar, but it seems that commercial pressure prevents them from doing so.
Look back at the instructor review in 95 and see what happened to the recommendations - zip! why? well it would have closed a number of schools . There is some hope again with the new review to be undertaken by BB. Hopefully we will see some improvements.
It can only get better!
(footnote: there are some very good schools about that produce a good product, but they are few and far between)
"A pilot passing a CPL test today would not have passed a PPL test in the '80's."
"There are some 400 places you can learn to fly and around 20 where you can train to be a lawyer"
Over the past decade I have to agree that the standard of training is falling. Many pilots entering regional airlines have to be re trained is some of the basics.
Basic tasks such as X/W ops, constant powered approach, landing on a nominated spot seem to be just too hard for many. You have to go back to the schools to see any links. I know some operators that will not touch pilots trained at some schools, it is just not worth the effort These are all basic skills. Seems to me the instructors are not up to speed in many cases and have little or no supervision. As has already been said "they don't know what they don't know".
There are certainly too many (advanced) flying schools. Its fine to do your PPL at the country aero club, but advanced training should be undertaken at a school that has good supervision and standards. CASA has the power to lift the bar, but it seems that commercial pressure prevents them from doing so.
Look back at the instructor review in 95 and see what happened to the recommendations - zip! why? well it would have closed a number of schools . There is some hope again with the new review to be undertaken by BB. Hopefully we will see some improvements.
It can only get better!
(footnote: there are some very good schools about that produce a good product, but they are few and far between)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting really controversial!
Alright, I've been thinking about this for a couple of days and it's time I took a swing.
When I came to Pittsburgh in 1990, I took five flight tests, (they call them check-rides here), to gain my equivalencies. ATPL with Multi-engine training approval to conduct instrument training, and tail-wheel with a logbook endorsement to teach aerobatics. The FAA actually found me a job, if you can believe, as a Chief Flight (Flying) Instructor , with part-time air ambulance flying with the same company. I stayed there for four and a half years.
The rumours started flying in 1995. I would get calls from Australia, to the tune of, "Can you believe they actually gave him a Grade One and now he has Chief Pilot Approval too!!"
Then the theory exams were faxed through, and then the list of spot questions was known to all and sundry. What was was considered the dastardly scandal of The America's had made its way to Australia.
In 1996, I had to fly a newborn child from Bowling Green, Kentucky to Cleveland Clinic. As was common with the job, it took several hours to stabilise the child. Finally, the owner of a small flying school pulled me to one side. He told me a tale of woe, regarding a young Australian instructor who had come through, and in two weeks had crashed two aircraft. The story goes that the first one was a night navex to Illinois where he ran out of fuel and crashed into the side of a house and destroyed the first one. Then a week or two later, taxied a Cessna 172 into a light post.
As a pitiful post script, he also came back to pick up his last pay check, claiming unpaid overtime.
Then comes my replacement at the air ambulance, (another Australian). They couldn\'t check him out on a twin-Cessna, and wouldn\'t let him near the Lear 24. He went to a commuter to fly the Dornier and failed the First Officer training.
The owner of my air ambulance company pulled me into the office, he honestly wanted to know if I was the exception to the rule or whether my replacement was. He thought he was getting a confident and hard working airman who was smart enough to keep his wits under the pressure of air ambulance in the terrible weather we get here. I assured him that my skills were considered very average by Australian standards, and that in fact I had failed my CPL flight test before finally meeting the standard set in Australia.
Then I went to TWA Express, and was the only one in the class to pass the First Officer training on the first attempt. I ran into the examiner on the way out and he said that I had restored his faith in Australian airmen. Only the week before, he had seen three First Officers from an Australian company do a horrible job in a simulator.
This was in late 1995.
In summary, I see the problems in Australia as three-fold:-
1. Designated Examiners (ATOs): The system has turned into printing press for licences. I know of an examiner that passed a candidate without being on the airfield. He has lost his approval, but it shows that the system was open to abuse from the beginning.
2. Teaching spot questions: The system allows too much prior knowledge of the content of each examination. This has allowed people with lower intellectual and educational standards to excel in an area where they have not demonstrated anything other than rote learning.
3. Accelerated training: This system allows an individual to demonstrate short term growth and expertise, but any educater knows that this is fraught with danger. Learning should be a long and even sometimes strenuous process for the recipient to enjoy long-term gain.
"I'll take a CPL and an order of fries, please."
When I came to Pittsburgh in 1990, I took five flight tests, (they call them check-rides here), to gain my equivalencies. ATPL with Multi-engine training approval to conduct instrument training, and tail-wheel with a logbook endorsement to teach aerobatics. The FAA actually found me a job, if you can believe, as a Chief Flight (Flying) Instructor , with part-time air ambulance flying with the same company. I stayed there for four and a half years.
The rumours started flying in 1995. I would get calls from Australia, to the tune of, "Can you believe they actually gave him a Grade One and now he has Chief Pilot Approval too!!"
Then the theory exams were faxed through, and then the list of spot questions was known to all and sundry. What was was considered the dastardly scandal of The America's had made its way to Australia.
In 1996, I had to fly a newborn child from Bowling Green, Kentucky to Cleveland Clinic. As was common with the job, it took several hours to stabilise the child. Finally, the owner of a small flying school pulled me to one side. He told me a tale of woe, regarding a young Australian instructor who had come through, and in two weeks had crashed two aircraft. The story goes that the first one was a night navex to Illinois where he ran out of fuel and crashed into the side of a house and destroyed the first one. Then a week or two later, taxied a Cessna 172 into a light post.
As a pitiful post script, he also came back to pick up his last pay check, claiming unpaid overtime.
Then comes my replacement at the air ambulance, (another Australian). They couldn\'t check him out on a twin-Cessna, and wouldn\'t let him near the Lear 24. He went to a commuter to fly the Dornier and failed the First Officer training.
The owner of my air ambulance company pulled me into the office, he honestly wanted to know if I was the exception to the rule or whether my replacement was. He thought he was getting a confident and hard working airman who was smart enough to keep his wits under the pressure of air ambulance in the terrible weather we get here. I assured him that my skills were considered very average by Australian standards, and that in fact I had failed my CPL flight test before finally meeting the standard set in Australia.
Then I went to TWA Express, and was the only one in the class to pass the First Officer training on the first attempt. I ran into the examiner on the way out and he said that I had restored his faith in Australian airmen. Only the week before, he had seen three First Officers from an Australian company do a horrible job in a simulator.
This was in late 1995.
In summary, I see the problems in Australia as three-fold:-
1. Designated Examiners (ATOs): The system has turned into printing press for licences. I know of an examiner that passed a candidate without being on the airfield. He has lost his approval, but it shows that the system was open to abuse from the beginning.
2. Teaching spot questions: The system allows too much prior knowledge of the content of each examination. This has allowed people with lower intellectual and educational standards to excel in an area where they have not demonstrated anything other than rote learning.
3. Accelerated training: This system allows an individual to demonstrate short term growth and expertise, but any educater knows that this is fraught with danger. Learning should be a long and even sometimes strenuous process for the recipient to enjoy long-term gain.
"I'll take a CPL and an order of fries, please."
Last edited by Chris Higgins; 9th Jan 2005 at 01:54.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris,
I read all of your points.
But is it not true that all of the thoery questions for the FAA exams for ATP, IFR etc are printed in books such as Gleims that anyone can buy and learn for the computer based theory exam? This seems to be exactly the same problem you describe in AUS.
Gleim CPL Book
Example Gleims
I read all of your points.
But is it not true that all of the thoery questions for the FAA exams for ATP, IFR etc are printed in books such as Gleims that anyone can buy and learn for the computer based theory exam? This seems to be exactly the same problem you describe in AUS.
Gleim CPL Book
Example Gleims
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncommon Sense
Completely correct. This is one of the reasons that USAir is about to shut its doors. Five hull losses in five years, to say nothing about the tragic loss of life.
The American standards are not where they should be either, which is why employers are looking to accredited universities and flying colleges with strong reputations to pass through the weak links.
America has seen the error of its ways, which is why you can't get a job now without a Bachelors Degree. It ensures a studious mindset, sets a baseline of intelligence and ensures the ability to engage in further learning as technologies progress.
Completely correct. This is one of the reasons that USAir is about to shut its doors. Five hull losses in five years, to say nothing about the tragic loss of life.
The American standards are not where they should be either, which is why employers are looking to accredited universities and flying colleges with strong reputations to pass through the weak links.
America has seen the error of its ways, which is why you can't get a job now without a Bachelors Degree. It ensures a studious mindset, sets a baseline of intelligence and ensures the ability to engage in further learning as technologies progress.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Zer Gut Ya?
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez, Chris. I remember a thread here on 'prune a few years back where some were advocating having a degree as part of our profession. They were howled down by all of the old salts (who generally don't have a degree and are incapable of further learning!).
I happen to agree with the approach taken by the US of goddamn A. A degree should be seen as highly desirable qualification for an airline pilot.
Problem is, pilots in Oz are now having to pay for their own qualifications, which may include a very expensive endorsement. How can they afford exorbitent HECS fees on top of all this. And our salaries ain't what they used to be, either. Thanks VB and J*.
An interesting conundrum.
I happen to agree with the approach taken by the US of goddamn A. A degree should be seen as highly desirable qualification for an airline pilot.
Problem is, pilots in Oz are now having to pay for their own qualifications, which may include a very expensive endorsement. How can they afford exorbitent HECS fees on top of all this. And our salaries ain't what they used to be, either. Thanks VB and J*.
An interesting conundrum.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then I went to TWA Express, and was the only one in the class to pass the First Officer training on the first attempt. I ran into the examiner on the way out and he said that I had restored his faith in Australian airmen. Only the week before, he had seen three First Officers from an Australian company do a horrible job in a simulator.
I guess sunlight really can get blown around by the wind
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ibex I'm sorry if you were one of them, but it was only a second hand account. It was accompanied by the statement. "If you had seen these "blokes" fly, you wouldn't have trusted them with a Cessna".
Yep, flying training is one of national pride, and we're opening a can of worms here. Don't think I know?
In my 22 years of flying, I think you can see that I have clearly admitted that that I am not impervious to error. The fact is, that I have had the benefit of knowing that through the growing process that others dismiss as failure.
When you have a culture that now clearly embraces Pay For Training, (PFT), you have immediately robbed yourself of a high percentage of the existing talent in your industry.
PFT did not work in America; it is now very rare and had disastrous effects in Hibbing, Minnesota with the crash of a Northwest Airlink Jetstream. PFT tends to take unqualified people with money and throws them into a situation for which they are not yet ready. It is more than just a slight against more qualified
candidates, it's against the lore of the jungle. The "species" of pilot does not get any stronger because of it.
Yep, flying training is one of national pride, and we're opening a can of worms here. Don't think I know?
In my 22 years of flying, I think you can see that I have clearly admitted that that I am not impervious to error. The fact is, that I have had the benefit of knowing that through the growing process that others dismiss as failure.
When you have a culture that now clearly embraces Pay For Training, (PFT), you have immediately robbed yourself of a high percentage of the existing talent in your industry.
PFT did not work in America; it is now very rare and had disastrous effects in Hibbing, Minnesota with the crash of a Northwest Airlink Jetstream. PFT tends to take unqualified people with money and throws them into a situation for which they are not yet ready. It is more than just a slight against more qualified
candidates, it's against the lore of the jungle. The "species" of pilot does not get any stronger because of it.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Zer Gut Ya?
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the bean counters bonus' continue to rise however, Chris.
And until we have the same experience here in OZ, sadly, we will continue along our merry path to destruction.
Just hope to hell I'm nowhere nearby when it happens.
And until we have the same experience here in OZ, sadly, we will continue along our merry path to destruction.
Just hope to hell I'm nowhere nearby when it happens.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A subject close to my heart!
Over a considerable period of time I conducted surveys of professionals throughout the industry to find some tangible proof that flying standards where not as they had been. Most agreed that standards had slipped and retraining was required by airlines to bring them up to speed even in basic flying techniques.
Several years ago with considerable industry consultation CASA introduced competency based training for pilots. This is subsequently being introduced across all aviation vocations.
CASA put the standards out as a training "syllabus" (for legal reasons I believe) without any proper guidelines as to how the standards within should be implemented by flying schools. It took several years before some schools mainly in WA were coerced by CASA operatives to actually take the "Claytons Syllabus" (there standards not a syllabus as specified by CASA)and design training curricula specific to their needs. Most schools still don't know how to develop a proper curriculum to meet the competency standards that have been set.
Many in the industry who have always based their assessments on their own "gut" feeling were highly critical of this "new" competency based training. The fact of the matter is that if competency based training is managed correctly, pilots should meet the standards that the industry has deemed suitable. The ATO is the last person in line, but by the stage that the pilot gets to the test he/she must have demonstrated that they can consistently meet the standards set down in the competencies.
In another role I actually established a five day senior management program for flying school operators (free) where this was a major topic for discussion along with instructor supervision, financial planning etc etc. The feedback on this program was outstanding although you always get the argument I cannot waste five days to make myself a more competent training school.
In regard to the standard of pilot in the US compared with Aus, it is interesting to note that the accident rate in GA in the US has decreased dramatically over the past ten years. Australian statistics have not shown the same degree of decrease in accident rates.
Protagonists will argue that statistics are viewed differently in the US to Aus, however, notwithstanding this, if the same local methods have been used to log accidents for the past ten years, surely the trends from each method must be considered in which case, the US is way ahead of Aus in its airmanship initiatives.
Finally, what happens to pilots once they have completed training, they go bush to gain experience. I fear for the lessons they learn from some of the operators mentioned from time to time on this forum. Do we need some sort of professional development for pilots to continue their apprenticeship once they have been given their pilot's licence to be let loose on an unsuspecting world.
Over a considerable period of time I conducted surveys of professionals throughout the industry to find some tangible proof that flying standards where not as they had been. Most agreed that standards had slipped and retraining was required by airlines to bring them up to speed even in basic flying techniques.
Several years ago with considerable industry consultation CASA introduced competency based training for pilots. This is subsequently being introduced across all aviation vocations.
CASA put the standards out as a training "syllabus" (for legal reasons I believe) without any proper guidelines as to how the standards within should be implemented by flying schools. It took several years before some schools mainly in WA were coerced by CASA operatives to actually take the "Claytons Syllabus" (there standards not a syllabus as specified by CASA)and design training curricula specific to their needs. Most schools still don't know how to develop a proper curriculum to meet the competency standards that have been set.
Many in the industry who have always based their assessments on their own "gut" feeling were highly critical of this "new" competency based training. The fact of the matter is that if competency based training is managed correctly, pilots should meet the standards that the industry has deemed suitable. The ATO is the last person in line, but by the stage that the pilot gets to the test he/she must have demonstrated that they can consistently meet the standards set down in the competencies.
In another role I actually established a five day senior management program for flying school operators (free) where this was a major topic for discussion along with instructor supervision, financial planning etc etc. The feedback on this program was outstanding although you always get the argument I cannot waste five days to make myself a more competent training school.
In regard to the standard of pilot in the US compared with Aus, it is interesting to note that the accident rate in GA in the US has decreased dramatically over the past ten years. Australian statistics have not shown the same degree of decrease in accident rates.
Protagonists will argue that statistics are viewed differently in the US to Aus, however, notwithstanding this, if the same local methods have been used to log accidents for the past ten years, surely the trends from each method must be considered in which case, the US is way ahead of Aus in its airmanship initiatives.
Finally, what happens to pilots once they have completed training, they go bush to gain experience. I fear for the lessons they learn from some of the operators mentioned from time to time on this forum. Do we need some sort of professional development for pilots to continue their apprenticeship once they have been given their pilot's licence to be let loose on an unsuspecting world.
Grandpa Aerotart
What % of US pilots have an aviation related degree?
It seems the degree is required because the regulator can't write decent exams or can't stop handing out the answers.
How about this for an answer?
Return the CPL/ATPL exams to a written answer format rather than the multi guess kind. Make damn sure the questions are relevant and require a depth of knowledge to answer rather than good short term memory.
A degree course is not required to fly a Boeing...we're not designing the bloody things after all.
Simplistic I know...they're often the best solutions though.
As for the ATO system?
Scap it....with the best intentions in the world an ATO who demands a high standard won't get called to do tests...or at the very least will only be called for the above average candidate. The fewer tests the ATO does the lower his income will be.
Alternatively, and because I know CASA aren't going to change the ATO system...that would cost the Govt money after all...ATOs to be assigned to a number of schools...the schools get no choice about who turns up to test a candidate. When one ATO retires/resigns his ATO approval a new ATO, from a bank of aspirants, is appointed to take over that batch of Flying training organisations...no freelance ATOs.
In order for a person to qualify for an ATO slot...when one becomes available..he/she must meet certain minimum guidelines.
1/. Wide industry experience...not just a grade 1 with 10000hrs in Cessna 152/172...in fact a grade 1 Instructor rating doesn't even need to be a qualification. A candidate could be an ex airline trainer/checker for instance who many never have held an Instructors Rating.
2/. Attends and passes a course in standards and ethics. A course accredited but not run by CASA...it is after all a standards and ethics course...it should be run by people who understand the course content.
CPL flight test to be in a complex aircraft and be at least 4 hrs long with landings at a primary airport, an MBZ and an ALA. The ALA should be testing enough so that if conditions are not right the applicant can show good command judgement and refuse to land. Obviously if he choses to attempt a landing and that is overidden by the ATO he just failed the entire test. CPL flight test preceeded by a searching oral covering air leg, aircraft systems/limitations, privelideges of the licence, etc.
Perhaps it wouldn't even hurt to make a MECIR a requirement for issue of a CPL. It could be incorporated in the CPL curriculum in such a way that it doesn't raise the cost inordinately....certainly an intelligent course designer could write a CPL/MECIR curriculum that has an overall cost less than the current CPL + MECIR.
20+ yrs ago my CPL 'curriculum' included lots of low level VFR navex and lots of 'general handling' to bring my skills up to a commercial 'standard'...time which could have been better spent I feel. Although the above example CPL flight test is exactly what I got 20+yrs ago. Perhaps in that pre GPS world the heavy biass towards traditional Nav skills was not missplaced.
People these days are spending in the order of 3-4 times what I spent getting a CPL but don't seem to be getting much bang for their buck.
A limitation on how many times a candidate can resit the CPL/MECIR test might be usefull too.
It seems the degree is required because the regulator can't write decent exams or can't stop handing out the answers.
How about this for an answer?
Return the CPL/ATPL exams to a written answer format rather than the multi guess kind. Make damn sure the questions are relevant and require a depth of knowledge to answer rather than good short term memory.
A degree course is not required to fly a Boeing...we're not designing the bloody things after all.
Simplistic I know...they're often the best solutions though.
As for the ATO system?
Scap it....with the best intentions in the world an ATO who demands a high standard won't get called to do tests...or at the very least will only be called for the above average candidate. The fewer tests the ATO does the lower his income will be.
Alternatively, and because I know CASA aren't going to change the ATO system...that would cost the Govt money after all...ATOs to be assigned to a number of schools...the schools get no choice about who turns up to test a candidate. When one ATO retires/resigns his ATO approval a new ATO, from a bank of aspirants, is appointed to take over that batch of Flying training organisations...no freelance ATOs.
In order for a person to qualify for an ATO slot...when one becomes available..he/she must meet certain minimum guidelines.
1/. Wide industry experience...not just a grade 1 with 10000hrs in Cessna 152/172...in fact a grade 1 Instructor rating doesn't even need to be a qualification. A candidate could be an ex airline trainer/checker for instance who many never have held an Instructors Rating.
2/. Attends and passes a course in standards and ethics. A course accredited but not run by CASA...it is after all a standards and ethics course...it should be run by people who understand the course content.
CPL flight test to be in a complex aircraft and be at least 4 hrs long with landings at a primary airport, an MBZ and an ALA. The ALA should be testing enough so that if conditions are not right the applicant can show good command judgement and refuse to land. Obviously if he choses to attempt a landing and that is overidden by the ATO he just failed the entire test. CPL flight test preceeded by a searching oral covering air leg, aircraft systems/limitations, privelideges of the licence, etc.
Perhaps it wouldn't even hurt to make a MECIR a requirement for issue of a CPL. It could be incorporated in the CPL curriculum in such a way that it doesn't raise the cost inordinately....certainly an intelligent course designer could write a CPL/MECIR curriculum that has an overall cost less than the current CPL + MECIR.
20+ yrs ago my CPL 'curriculum' included lots of low level VFR navex and lots of 'general handling' to bring my skills up to a commercial 'standard'...time which could have been better spent I feel. Although the above example CPL flight test is exactly what I got 20+yrs ago. Perhaps in that pre GPS world the heavy biass towards traditional Nav skills was not missplaced.
People these days are spending in the order of 3-4 times what I spent getting a CPL but don't seem to be getting much bang for their buck.
A limitation on how many times a candidate can resit the CPL/MECIR test might be usefull too.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 10th Jan 2005 at 01:16.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,976
Received 104 Likes
on
59 Posts
Chuckles; No argument with your suggestions re CPL/ATPL theory exams or the CPL Flight test for that matter.
Back in 1985 I did the first half of my CPL flight training in a Cherokee with heaps of low level navex 'under the hood' thrown in. Then when judged competent I was put in a Seneca 1 for my first M/E type and after endorsement training completed my CPL training and flight test(s).
The flight tests totalled just over 6 hours and the testing officer ( ex RAAF) proceeded to put me through just about everything in the book! And I'm still thankful to my Instuctors and the testing officer as well for the hard time they gave me.
I would'nt be alive today if they had'nt!!
You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
Back in 1985 I did the first half of my CPL flight training in a Cherokee with heaps of low level navex 'under the hood' thrown in. Then when judged competent I was put in a Seneca 1 for my first M/E type and after endorsement training completed my CPL training and flight test(s).
The flight tests totalled just over 6 hours and the testing officer ( ex RAAF) proceeded to put me through just about everything in the book! And I'm still thankful to my Instuctors and the testing officer as well for the hard time they gave me.
I would'nt be alive today if they had'nt!!
You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
Sprucegoose
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Pinky and Chuck,
I did my CPL flight test in the 80's also, with a DOA (as it was then) ex RAAF examiner. Flight test lasted 4.6 hours including a landing at a GAAP, conrolled aerodrome, MBZ (or equivilent in the day) followed by a diversion to an ALA, where I did'nt land due no permission and water on the runway.
Now during this flight the examiner sat at attention for the entire time and after landing the only two words the examiner said to me for the whole flight was..... "You've failed" not in the last part mind you, way back at the start of the flight.
Now let me see, even back then it was $100 for a flight test and $240 per hour for a seminole. Just over a grand for nothing.
To say I was ropable was an understatement, while I am all for a raise in standards, I am definately not in favour of a return to the holier than thou attitude, that was so prevelant at the time.
Cheers, HH
I did my CPL flight test in the 80's also, with a DOA (as it was then) ex RAAF examiner. Flight test lasted 4.6 hours including a landing at a GAAP, conrolled aerodrome, MBZ (or equivilent in the day) followed by a diversion to an ALA, where I did'nt land due no permission and water on the runway.
Now during this flight the examiner sat at attention for the entire time and after landing the only two words the examiner said to me for the whole flight was..... "You've failed" not in the last part mind you, way back at the start of the flight.
Now let me see, even back then it was $100 for a flight test and $240 per hour for a seminole. Just over a grand for nothing.
To say I was ropable was an understatement, while I am all for a raise in standards, I am definately not in favour of a return to the holier than thou attitude, that was so prevelant at the time.
Cheers, HH
Grandpa Aerotart
Was that NSW Region?
Sounds like the same ex RAAF loser who failed a mate of mine on his initial I/R....not for being out of tolerance or anything objective like that...for being "not mature enough for the rating" 
And my mate was one of the more mature among our group...least likely to buzz Waragambah Dam etc.
The were several ex RAAF Examiners of Airmen like that in NSW Region up to the mid 80s...I failed my initial UPPL flight test (same Examiner) for being outside +/- 2 minutes at one turning point by 30 seconds...the pric actually stopped me making my position report until I was over the dead center of the airfield to make sure I was outside the 2 minutes...then he gave me a multi sector diversion back to Bankstown which was all done within 30 seconds of ETAs...did I deserve to fail? No-one else thougt so.
What's better from a standards PoV...the odd lunatic who seeks a level of perfection he never attained himself or, as I have heard from a retiring ATO, students who point blank refuse to be subjected to certain, perfectly reasonable, excercises
and an ATO system that clearly was not well thought out and even more poorly administered?
Do young pilots who hold themselves to high personal standards want to be competing for the few entry level jobs with dicks who shouldn't have the licence but who still manage to get jobs? They exist..I've seen them...even sacked the odd one here and there.
Sounds like the same ex RAAF loser who failed a mate of mine on his initial I/R....not for being out of tolerance or anything objective like that...for being "not mature enough for the rating"
And my mate was one of the more mature among our group...least likely to buzz Waragambah Dam etc. The were several ex RAAF Examiners of Airmen like that in NSW Region up to the mid 80s...I failed my initial UPPL flight test (same Examiner) for being outside +/- 2 minutes at one turning point by 30 seconds...the pric actually stopped me making my position report until I was over the dead center of the airfield to make sure I was outside the 2 minutes...then he gave me a multi sector diversion back to Bankstown which was all done within 30 seconds of ETAs...did I deserve to fail? No-one else thougt so.
What's better from a standards PoV...the odd lunatic who seeks a level of perfection he never attained himself or, as I have heard from a retiring ATO, students who point blank refuse to be subjected to certain, perfectly reasonable, excercises
and an ATO system that clearly was not well thought out and even more poorly administered?Do young pilots who hold themselves to high personal standards want to be competing for the few entry level jobs with dicks who shouldn't have the licence but who still manage to get jobs? They exist..I've seen them...even sacked the odd one here and there.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 10th Jan 2005 at 08:09.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i completed my UPPL at bankstown in 86! had an ex RAAF instructor and examiner, (one of my initial flying mentors now operates DC3 flights)
i remember the training to be very tough compared to what i am put through today, but he passed me first attempt at everything. back then even the biannual in 88 woried me and had me practising manouvers and mini navs in the training area in the weeks prior and in the books the night before, my most recent biannual last year was no more than 30 mins covering basic emergency procedures, not even a simulated failure after TO! all it included was 2 sim engine failures, 3 circuits, flapless, glide, and ops normal.
my 88 Biannual included a short nav to katoomba, 3 engine failures, one in the circuit at YSBK, and an failure after TO at YHOX, and 5 curcuits with various setups, flapless, glide, partial panel etc.
come to think of it, i might spend the next few hrs in the air practising all those old experiences.
My initial instructor was a well travelled and very experienced aviator, my most recent, was very young, and only "to get the hours for an airline position"
so from my viewpoint, training has definatly laxed, but then again i feel i was trained by some of the better pilots where it counted.
i remember the training to be very tough compared to what i am put through today, but he passed me first attempt at everything. back then even the biannual in 88 woried me and had me practising manouvers and mini navs in the training area in the weeks prior and in the books the night before, my most recent biannual last year was no more than 30 mins covering basic emergency procedures, not even a simulated failure after TO! all it included was 2 sim engine failures, 3 circuits, flapless, glide, and ops normal.
my 88 Biannual included a short nav to katoomba, 3 engine failures, one in the circuit at YSBK, and an failure after TO at YHOX, and 5 curcuits with various setups, flapless, glide, partial panel etc.
come to think of it, i might spend the next few hrs in the air practising all those old experiences.
My initial instructor was a well travelled and very experienced aviator, my most recent, was very young, and only "to get the hours for an airline position"
so from my viewpoint, training has definatly laxed, but then again i feel i was trained by some of the better pilots where it counted.
Ultralights firstly biannual means twice a year, I think you mean biennial which is every two years. The BFR is now called an Aeroplane Flight Review AFR.
An AFR is not training. It is a review of your current flying standard, so for you to say...
means that you are confusing the rigorous training that you undertook to obtain a UPPL with a short check flight sampling your current standard of flying.
When I conduct an AFR I always look back through the log book of the pilot and see what their previous AFRs consisted of. They vary wildly. Some are 0.8 and some are 2.5 hours. CASA has put out zero guidance about what an AFR should contain so schools have come up with their own requirements. It is interesting to note that it is always those with the lowest standard of performance who moan the loudest about having to do the AFR.
Howard Hughes if you failed near the beginning of the flight test why not return to base?
Chimbu having a CIR as part of a CPL would not help much really but it would add a huge cost burden and then the currency issues. The old requirement of a Class 4/NVFR does go some way to improving skills and knowledge. The philosophy at the CAA was that basic commercial ops are day VFR, single engine, single pilot and so the syllabus and test relects that.
An AFR is not training. It is a review of your current flying standard, so for you to say...
i completed my UPPL at bankstown in 86!...i remember the training to be very tough compared to what i am put through today
When I conduct an AFR I always look back through the log book of the pilot and see what their previous AFRs consisted of. They vary wildly. Some are 0.8 and some are 2.5 hours. CASA has put out zero guidance about what an AFR should contain so schools have come up with their own requirements. It is interesting to note that it is always those with the lowest standard of performance who moan the loudest about having to do the AFR.
Howard Hughes if you failed near the beginning of the flight test why not return to base?
Chimbu having a CIR as part of a CPL would not help much really but it would add a huge cost burden and then the currency issues. The old requirement of a Class 4/NVFR does go some way to improving skills and knowledge. The philosophy at the CAA was that basic commercial ops are day VFR, single engine, single pilot and so the syllabus and test relects that.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry my mistake, what i am refering to is the difference in what i was tested by different flying schools. in my first BFR my testing was with the same school as my training, since my initial instructors retiring and moving to other areas, i have noticed the other schools i went to would check less and less.
to be honest i would prefer the BFR/AFR be as rigourous as my first few, that would force me to get my act together if just for personal satisfaction.
to be honest i would prefer the BFR/AFR be as rigourous as my first few, that would force me to get my act together if just for personal satisfaction.
Sprucegoose
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Icarus,
That's why I was ropable, I made a fairly major mistake which I knew at the time, he said nothing and we continued the flight. The purpose of which still elludes me to this day. I was young and impressionable at the time and probably thought I was going to get away with it. Of course $1000 was a lot of biccies to spend in one day with nothing to show for it.
Ultralights,
I do tend to agree that Biennial flight reviews from my experience have become less rigid over the years. I have'nt done one for about 6 years now, so ca'nt speak of current practices.
Cheers, HH.
That's why I was ropable, I made a fairly major mistake which I knew at the time, he said nothing and we continued the flight. The purpose of which still elludes me to this day. I was young and impressionable at the time and probably thought I was going to get away with it. Of course $1000 was a lot of biccies to spend in one day with nothing to show for it.
Ultralights,
I do tend to agree that Biennial flight reviews from my experience have become less rigid over the years. I have'nt done one for about 6 years now, so ca'nt speak of current practices.
Cheers, HH.
2 pilots of Saxon origin, turned up at our airfield today, just before a dash 8, in a beast from a well known school at archerfield. their initial joining was right circuit type procedures at 500 feet. they became concerned about the approaching dash and flew across the dash's approach path to get out of the road. loitered out to the north east till the dash landed, then joined right circut for 30. they may have been rattled. i had a yarn to them about circut entry, and it seems that they may have confused 1500' overfly height for 1500' amsl, due to the fact they had departed ybaf (approx 30'amsl). these people must have checked out by the school and if so, someone has f**ked up. not serious, i grant you, but the dash pilot was wondering what they were up to. if they had followed circut procedures, they would have been on the ground long before the dash got there. contrary to popular belief, a dash pilot will follow you around the circut if you sound like you know what you are doing.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trashie ,
Merry Christmas to you and your good wife. How's the new job? RRPI are producing a course on CBT this year starting next month. I. D. has been contracted to help them present it. It goes hand in hand with the Instructor Seminars planned for this year.
Call some time so we can catch up for coffee.
Cheers
TBT
Merry Christmas to you and your good wife. How's the new job? RRPI are producing a course on CBT this year starting next month. I. D. has been contracted to help them present it. It goes hand in hand with the Instructor Seminars planned for this year.
Call some time so we can catch up for coffee.
Cheers
TBT